Aussies Flying O/S-Tax Law Amendment
Thread Starter
Aussies Flying O/S-Tax Law Amendment
This change or clarification to the tax laws for pilots living in Australia but working outside the country or touring has now been finalised. This will no doubt adversely affect a few people.
Copy of the email I received from the ATD is reproduced for information.Addendum
Income tax: foreign tax credit system: issues relating to the practical application of section 23AG
The following changes to TR 19/15 apply from 17 July 2002.
· Add the following paragraph:
9A. Whether a person is absent from foreign service because of recreation leave is a question of fact. However, for subsection 23AG(6) to apply, the recreation leave taken in Australia or elsewhere during a period of foreign service must be attributable to the period during which the person was engaged in foreign service. This means that, for the purposes of subsection 23AG(6), recreation leave can only arise where it accrues during the days that a person is actively engaged in foreign service. Annual leave that meets the requirements of subsection 23AG(6) will be regarded as recreation leave.
· Replace the content contained in subparagraph 11(b) with the following:
A period of foreign service is taken to include weekends, public holidays, rostered days off, ‘compulsory lay off/over days’, ‘grounded days’ and flexidays (which are not ‘available days’ spent in Australia), and days off in lieu of such, provided:
(i) such breaks are authorised by the terms and conditions of the foreign service employment or engagement; and
(ii) where such breaks are used by the person to visit or return to Australia they must not be excessive by comparison with the scheduled period of foreign service or, if the period of foreign service is ongoing, by comparison with the income year. As a guide, the Commissioner considers that where such breaks are used to visit or return to Australia, they will be excessive where the total of such breaks are more than one-sixth of the period of scheduled foreign service or, if the period of foreign service is ongoing, more than one sixth of the income year. Therefore, where the total of temporary absences is excessive in terms of this paragraph, each temporary absence will be taken to break the foreign service period, subject to section 23AG(6A) to (6E).
Rostered days off, compulsory lay off/over days, grounded days and flexidays are not considered to be recreation leave for the purposes of section 23AG(6). That is because such absences are not recreation days that are granted as a result of leave that has accrued while a person is actively engaged in foreign service.
Available days spent in Australia are not considered to be a period of foreign service. Where an employee spends available days in Australia, this period is considered to be a break in foreign service, unless subsections 23AG(6A) to (6E) apply. That is because such time is not recreation leave for the purposes of subsection 23AG(6), nor does it come within any of the temporary absences set out in paragraph 11 of this Ruling. If available days are spent in a foreign country, it is considered that those days will form part of the foreign service period.
· Add the following paragraph:
31A. The following is an example where temporary absences spent in Australia would be regarded as excessive.
Pilots
An international pilot resides in Australia and is employed by a foreign airline on an ongoing basis. During the 2003 income year, the pilot flies for approximately 800 hours. She is entitled to six weeks annual leave and also has other days where she is not actively performing service, such as compulsory lay off days, grounded days and rostered days off, which in conjunction with her recreation leave she chooses to spend in Australia.
Typically, the pilot flies internationally (including stopovers and rests) for ten days and receives six days off. Assume that each six day period is spent in Australia and falls within the types of temporary absences set out in paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling. She also has an absentee credit balance - section 23AG(6B) - of three days at the start of the 2003 income year. Looked at over the 2003 income year, this means the pilot spends approximately 120 days (in addition to six weeks annual leave) in Australia on those absences covered by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling.
In judging whether the 120 days spent in Australia during the income year is excessive in terms of paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling, the Commissioner considers that as a guide the total of such breaks spent in Australia should not be more than one-sixth of the income year (61 days) because there is ongoing foreign service. In this case, the number of days spent in Australia during the income year on temporary absences covered by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling is 120 days and is clearly excessive.
This means that each time the pilot returns to Australia during the 2003 income year for the six day break, there is a break in foreign service, unless there are sufficient absentee credits accumulated in accordance with section 23AG(6B). In this case, the absentee credit of three days at the start of the year would be extinguished the first time the taxpayer returns to Australia during the 2003 income year for a six day break.
Moreover, throughout the year there would not be sufficient absentee credits that accumulate each time there is foreign service to cover the pattern of six day breaks. This means that each time the taxpayer returns from a ten day period of foreign service during the income year for a six day break, there is a break in foreign service.
As a result, there is no period during the income year where the foreign service period is for 91 continuous days or more. Therefore, the pilot will not be entitled to the exemption under section 23AG.
· Add the following paragraph:
31B. The following is an example where temporary absences spent in Australia would not be regarded as excessive.
Frank is an Australian resident. As a helicopter pilot, he enters into a one-year employment contract to work for a company that operates in the Papua New Guinea and Indonesian areas. The contract runs from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. During that year, Frank habitually returns to Australia on days off in lieu of weekends and rostered days off. In total, he returns to Australia on these temporary absences for 50 days during the 2003 income year.
The temporary absences covered by Frank’s return to Australia fall within the type of absences contemplated by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling and are not excessive by comparison with the scheduled period of foreign service (50 days out of 365). Therefore, each time Frank returns to Australia on these breaks, such breaks are taken to be part of Frank’s foreign service period. Consequently, Frank is entitled to a section 23AG exemption during the 2003 income year in respect of his employment income as a helicopter pilot.
Commissioner of Taxation
17 July 2002
Related Rulings etc:
These changes previously issued in draft Taxation Determination TD 2002/D3.
ATO references:
NO T2001/013093
BO
ISSN: 1039 - 0731
Copy of the email I received from the ATD is reproduced for information.Addendum
Income tax: foreign tax credit system: issues relating to the practical application of section 23AG
The following changes to TR 19/15 apply from 17 July 2002.
· Add the following paragraph:
9A. Whether a person is absent from foreign service because of recreation leave is a question of fact. However, for subsection 23AG(6) to apply, the recreation leave taken in Australia or elsewhere during a period of foreign service must be attributable to the period during which the person was engaged in foreign service. This means that, for the purposes of subsection 23AG(6), recreation leave can only arise where it accrues during the days that a person is actively engaged in foreign service. Annual leave that meets the requirements of subsection 23AG(6) will be regarded as recreation leave.
· Replace the content contained in subparagraph 11(b) with the following:
A period of foreign service is taken to include weekends, public holidays, rostered days off, ‘compulsory lay off/over days’, ‘grounded days’ and flexidays (which are not ‘available days’ spent in Australia), and days off in lieu of such, provided:
(i) such breaks are authorised by the terms and conditions of the foreign service employment or engagement; and
(ii) where such breaks are used by the person to visit or return to Australia they must not be excessive by comparison with the scheduled period of foreign service or, if the period of foreign service is ongoing, by comparison with the income year. As a guide, the Commissioner considers that where such breaks are used to visit or return to Australia, they will be excessive where the total of such breaks are more than one-sixth of the period of scheduled foreign service or, if the period of foreign service is ongoing, more than one sixth of the income year. Therefore, where the total of temporary absences is excessive in terms of this paragraph, each temporary absence will be taken to break the foreign service period, subject to section 23AG(6A) to (6E).
Rostered days off, compulsory lay off/over days, grounded days and flexidays are not considered to be recreation leave for the purposes of section 23AG(6). That is because such absences are not recreation days that are granted as a result of leave that has accrued while a person is actively engaged in foreign service.
Available days spent in Australia are not considered to be a period of foreign service. Where an employee spends available days in Australia, this period is considered to be a break in foreign service, unless subsections 23AG(6A) to (6E) apply. That is because such time is not recreation leave for the purposes of subsection 23AG(6), nor does it come within any of the temporary absences set out in paragraph 11 of this Ruling. If available days are spent in a foreign country, it is considered that those days will form part of the foreign service period.
· Add the following paragraph:
31A. The following is an example where temporary absences spent in Australia would be regarded as excessive.
Pilots
An international pilot resides in Australia and is employed by a foreign airline on an ongoing basis. During the 2003 income year, the pilot flies for approximately 800 hours. She is entitled to six weeks annual leave and also has other days where she is not actively performing service, such as compulsory lay off days, grounded days and rostered days off, which in conjunction with her recreation leave she chooses to spend in Australia.
Typically, the pilot flies internationally (including stopovers and rests) for ten days and receives six days off. Assume that each six day period is spent in Australia and falls within the types of temporary absences set out in paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling. She also has an absentee credit balance - section 23AG(6B) - of three days at the start of the 2003 income year. Looked at over the 2003 income year, this means the pilot spends approximately 120 days (in addition to six weeks annual leave) in Australia on those absences covered by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling.
In judging whether the 120 days spent in Australia during the income year is excessive in terms of paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling, the Commissioner considers that as a guide the total of such breaks spent in Australia should not be more than one-sixth of the income year (61 days) because there is ongoing foreign service. In this case, the number of days spent in Australia during the income year on temporary absences covered by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling is 120 days and is clearly excessive.
This means that each time the pilot returns to Australia during the 2003 income year for the six day break, there is a break in foreign service, unless there are sufficient absentee credits accumulated in accordance with section 23AG(6B). In this case, the absentee credit of three days at the start of the year would be extinguished the first time the taxpayer returns to Australia during the 2003 income year for a six day break.
Moreover, throughout the year there would not be sufficient absentee credits that accumulate each time there is foreign service to cover the pattern of six day breaks. This means that each time the taxpayer returns from a ten day period of foreign service during the income year for a six day break, there is a break in foreign service.
As a result, there is no period during the income year where the foreign service period is for 91 continuous days or more. Therefore, the pilot will not be entitled to the exemption under section 23AG.
· Add the following paragraph:
31B. The following is an example where temporary absences spent in Australia would not be regarded as excessive.
Frank is an Australian resident. As a helicopter pilot, he enters into a one-year employment contract to work for a company that operates in the Papua New Guinea and Indonesian areas. The contract runs from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. During that year, Frank habitually returns to Australia on days off in lieu of weekends and rostered days off. In total, he returns to Australia on these temporary absences for 50 days during the 2003 income year.
The temporary absences covered by Frank’s return to Australia fall within the type of absences contemplated by paragraph 11(b) of this Ruling and are not excessive by comparison with the scheduled period of foreign service (50 days out of 365). Therefore, each time Frank returns to Australia on these breaks, such breaks are taken to be part of Frank’s foreign service period. Consequently, Frank is entitled to a section 23AG exemption during the 2003 income year in respect of his employment income as a helicopter pilot.
Commissioner of Taxation
17 July 2002
Related Rulings etc:
These changes previously issued in draft Taxation Determination TD 2002/D3.
ATO references:
NO T2001/013093
BO
ISSN: 1039 - 0731
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It certainly is going to impact on a lot of people (interesting that they've used pilots as examples!), esp. the SQ and CX pilots who have their homes and families in Oz. 
Will the Aussie tax payable be calculated at the marginal rate, or on an increasing scale?
I assume (stupid me!) that the Oz tax payable would be calculated only on the number of days in excess of the 50 rather than the whole year's income, as long as tax was paid elsewhere on the balance.
Edit - Furthermore, I can't see how the 60 day rule has been achieved. As a public servant, even the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation would be aware that he and his hard-working
fellow employees get EVERY week-end off (in addition to Public holidays). There are 104 Saturdays and Sundays every year, on average.
So where does the 60 come in ?
Will the Aussie tax payable be calculated at the marginal rate, or on an increasing scale?
I assume (stupid me!) that the Oz tax payable would be calculated only on the number of days in excess of the 50 rather than the whole year's income, as long as tax was paid elsewhere on the balance.
Edit - Furthermore, I can't see how the 60 day rule has been achieved. As a public servant, even the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation would be aware that he and his hard-working
fellow employees get EVERY week-end off (in addition to Public holidays). There are 104 Saturdays and Sundays every year, on average.So where does the 60 come in ?
Last edited by Kaptin M; 23rd Jul 2002 at 02:14.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: the world
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isnt it amazing how these idiots can attempt to clarify something and make it even more complicated and require yet more pages of additions to our already complicated taxation system.
Guess I should have been a lawyer.
Guess I should have been a lawyer.
Thread Starter
I'm impressed that their international airline pilot working for the foreign airline, and based in Australia is a "she". Bit disappointed that the helicopter pilot is just a "Frank". What's wrong with Nguyen, Mohamed, or even Nancy if we're going to be really politically correct?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Godzone (northern sector)
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember another correspondent voiced a similar opinion a few days ago, but I can't help adding my degree of vitriol to the issue of the latest tax reform.
At 50, I concede the growth and learning curve is still positive and I hope I'm better for it, but I remained saddened and annoyed by this latest development by the ATO. Despite the result of the '89 crisis and several other pilots disputes since (NZ, UK etc), I harboured a general belief that Gann's "Band of Brothers" read some grain of reality by describing the fraternity amongst pilots in his inimitable prose.
Some QF pilots' crusade against the Oz-based CX pilots has been so rancourous and unyeilding, that they appear to have got their wish; perhaps pulling them (and others) into the avaricious ATO net. But to what end? Do the QF pilots benefit in any way? I think not, which leads me to see the vendetta as a damning indictment on the mentality of those whingeing for so long.
Congratulations, you QF tossers who sold out to the ATO for no gain and have caused so much inconvenience and money to other pilots (non-CX) who chose the offshore contract (generally) path. What Whitlam and the Labour party started in 1973 you have elevated to a white collar example par excellence. Quislings: the lot of you. Enjoy the rest of your small-minded and egocentric lives.
At 50, I concede the growth and learning curve is still positive and I hope I'm better for it, but I remained saddened and annoyed by this latest development by the ATO. Despite the result of the '89 crisis and several other pilots disputes since (NZ, UK etc), I harboured a general belief that Gann's "Band of Brothers" read some grain of reality by describing the fraternity amongst pilots in his inimitable prose.
Some QF pilots' crusade against the Oz-based CX pilots has been so rancourous and unyeilding, that they appear to have got their wish; perhaps pulling them (and others) into the avaricious ATO net. But to what end? Do the QF pilots benefit in any way? I think not, which leads me to see the vendetta as a damning indictment on the mentality of those whingeing for so long.
Congratulations, you QF tossers who sold out to the ATO for no gain and have caused so much inconvenience and money to other pilots (non-CX) who chose the offshore contract (generally) path. What Whitlam and the Labour party started in 1973 you have elevated to a white collar example par excellence. Quislings: the lot of you. Enjoy the rest of your small-minded and egocentric lives.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
typical myopic decision by the ATO.
Now the exodus begins back to Hong Kong by all those whose seniority allows.
No more big dollars being spent on flash cars,houses,no govt stamp duty, no gst, and all for what?
In dollar terms the Australian economy just got a damn side poorer and all to apease a bunch of wingers at a certain national airline who have been lobbying for such to their accountants for years.
If only they could see the big picture, you knock down the big money earners and by doing so you reduce the average wage for all............but hasn't this been part of the national psyche for decades.....aren't we collectively stupid!
Now the exodus begins back to Hong Kong by all those whose seniority allows.
No more big dollars being spent on flash cars,houses,no govt stamp duty, no gst, and all for what?
In dollar terms the Australian economy just got a damn side poorer and all to apease a bunch of wingers at a certain national airline who have been lobbying for such to their accountants for years.
If only they could see the big picture, you knock down the big money earners and by doing so you reduce the average wage for all............but hasn't this been part of the national psyche for decades.....aren't we collectively stupid!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you spend the 110 days as annual leave, then you are ok. If you spend more than 60 days in Oz as a result of layovers or days off (which I assume is your scenario), then you will pay Oz tax at the full rate.
That's my interpretation.
Bastards.
That's my interpretation.
Bastards.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see what business it is to do with (in this case) Oz for any activity carried out in another country. Whilst "away" the individual is not a burden on the "home" country, is not enjoying(?) any of its benefits, using its amenities or causing any expense to that nation. Amazingly, I did once beilieve all that (the foolish boy that I am) and was subsequently made to PAY for that mistake - slowly, over years and months and after many a descriptive letter from me to boot...!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire wall and suddentwang if there has been a campaign by QF pilots, then it must have been a very quiet one, I do not know of anybody carrying out one.
Yes there is dissatisfaction on the amount of tax we pay and yes there has been a small amount of discussion (not often) in the odd bar on how fortunate the CX pilots tax situation is/was, but there was no campaign by a group of QF pilots.
I doubt that the ATO would have changed the rules for a couple of sour grape reports from one or two misguided individuals.
Yes there is dissatisfaction on the amount of tax we pay and yes there has been a small amount of discussion (not often) in the odd bar on how fortunate the CX pilots tax situation is/was, but there was no campaign by a group of QF pilots.
I doubt that the ATO would have changed the rules for a couple of sour grape reports from one or two misguided individuals.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: nowhere
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suddentwang,
Are you kidding or is this a wind up?? Qf Pilot's deliberately going after CX pilots. Get real sunshine. Qf Pilots haven been hit by two adverse decisions in the last few years, namely taxation on allowances which were one of our last remaining tax free perks (by the way, it cost most of the junior 767 F/o's, ie those doing mainly domestic, aroud $5000 in extra tax last year) and the superannuation surcharge tax, which AIPA HAS ACTIVELY APPEALED/ PURSUED/COMPLAINED AGIANST, but this has been all above board and pursued through the Finace Minister in Canberra etc etc. To say that QF pilots have pushed the ATO into this is paranoia at it worse, a complete insult at best. Do you really think QF pilots would help the ATO??
A Sopwith Pup says, I don't think so.
Are you kidding or is this a wind up?? Qf Pilot's deliberately going after CX pilots. Get real sunshine. Qf Pilots haven been hit by two adverse decisions in the last few years, namely taxation on allowances which were one of our last remaining tax free perks (by the way, it cost most of the junior 767 F/o's, ie those doing mainly domestic, aroud $5000 in extra tax last year) and the superannuation surcharge tax, which AIPA HAS ACTIVELY APPEALED/ PURSUED/COMPLAINED AGIANST, but this has been all above board and pursued through the Finace Minister in Canberra etc etc. To say that QF pilots have pushed the ATO into this is paranoia at it worse, a complete insult at best. Do you really think QF pilots would help the ATO??
A Sopwith Pup says, I don't think so.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gees Sopwith, my accountant must be a liar then (Bently's MRI) and so must my mate's (Deloitte Touche Tomatsu).....both of them also prepare returns for numerous other pilots and every year they report they are constantly bombarded with questions as to "when are we going to get those CX/Eva/Korean/JAL/SQ guys"
Perhaps you are happy with your lot and not the bitter and twisted type but that does not qualify you to speak for your compatriates.
Inverted, an aditionmal tax of $5000/yr for 767 QF F/O's.....try $5000/month on this side of the fence....others up to $11000/month (JAL and CX 'A' scale Captains)
Like I said....collectively bloody stupid.
Perhaps you are happy with your lot and not the bitter and twisted type but that does not qualify you to speak for your compatriates.
Inverted, an aditionmal tax of $5000/yr for 767 QF F/O's.....try $5000/month on this side of the fence....others up to $11000/month (JAL and CX 'A' scale Captains)
Like I said....collectively bloody stupid.
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top shooting firewall. But face it. The oceanic greed of the Commonwealth public service was bound to produce this sooner or later.
Wasn't there a story, something about a goose? Something special about it's eggs?
Wasn't there a story, something about a goose? Something special about it's eggs?
Suddentwang
I also am appalled at your assertion that QF pilots mounted a campaign to have the ATO tax pilots for foreign airline who reside in Australia. We envied your status but most of the discussion (bar talk) centred around how we could achieve such a position for ourselves eg be employed by a QF subsidiary based in an overseas tax haven. All avenues that were investigated found no legal way for us to achieve the same position as the CX,SQ, etc pilots living in OZ. At no stage was there any attempt to change the tax status of the pilots employed overseas.
I have no evidence of this but I believe that when Paul Keating was PM, his government offered incentives to CX to base their mainframe computer complex and Flight Simulator centre in Australia. One of these incentives was to permit CX pilots to reside in OZ on permanent basings but would be treated by the ATO as domiciled in HKG. The benefit for CX was that pilots who took up these basings would no longer receive rental subsidies and free education for their children - a saving of a considerable amount of money. CX did install their mainframe computer complex in NW Sydney, however, elected to put their Flight Simulator complex at the new airport in HKG. During subsequent years, other airlines have been able to attract pilots from OZ by establishing bases here (at a considerable saving in expat type costs).
I suspect that senior beaurocrats at the ATO, being aware of the inequities of these pilots (& their families) using all the infrastructure that tax money has provided for the residents of Australia, have waited an "appropriate" amount of time since the departure of the Keating government and have now made the changes as detailed above.
QF PILOTS DID NOT LOBBY FOR THESE CHANGES AND QUESTIONS TO AN ACCOUNTANT/TAX AGENT ABOUT WHY SOME CAN GET AWAY WITH IT WHILE OTHERS CAN'T IS NOT LOBBYING.
I hate the tall poppy attitude that frequently raises its head as I believe that there should be people achieving better pay & conditions so that the rest of us can use them as examples to improve our own lot. If we bring them back to the Lowest Common Denominator then we won't be able to negotiate a better position for ourselves. GB
I also am appalled at your assertion that QF pilots mounted a campaign to have the ATO tax pilots for foreign airline who reside in Australia. We envied your status but most of the discussion (bar talk) centred around how we could achieve such a position for ourselves eg be employed by a QF subsidiary based in an overseas tax haven. All avenues that were investigated found no legal way for us to achieve the same position as the CX,SQ, etc pilots living in OZ. At no stage was there any attempt to change the tax status of the pilots employed overseas.
I have no evidence of this but I believe that when Paul Keating was PM, his government offered incentives to CX to base their mainframe computer complex and Flight Simulator centre in Australia. One of these incentives was to permit CX pilots to reside in OZ on permanent basings but would be treated by the ATO as domiciled in HKG. The benefit for CX was that pilots who took up these basings would no longer receive rental subsidies and free education for their children - a saving of a considerable amount of money. CX did install their mainframe computer complex in NW Sydney, however, elected to put their Flight Simulator complex at the new airport in HKG. During subsequent years, other airlines have been able to attract pilots from OZ by establishing bases here (at a considerable saving in expat type costs).
I suspect that senior beaurocrats at the ATO, being aware of the inequities of these pilots (& their families) using all the infrastructure that tax money has provided for the residents of Australia, have waited an "appropriate" amount of time since the departure of the Keating government and have now made the changes as detailed above.
QF PILOTS DID NOT LOBBY FOR THESE CHANGES AND QUESTIONS TO AN ACCOUNTANT/TAX AGENT ABOUT WHY SOME CAN GET AWAY WITH IT WHILE OTHERS CAN'T IS NOT LOBBYING.
I hate the tall poppy attitude that frequently raises its head as I believe that there should be people achieving better pay & conditions so that the rest of us can use them as examples to improve our own lot. If we bring them back to the Lowest Common Denominator then we won't be able to negotiate a better position for ourselves. GB
Mark Six,
Thanks for the post and a quick question from a slow brain; does this ruling still apply if you are away for 91 days straight(section 23AG) but end up spending 140 days at home a year on days off/annual leave with no requirement to be available.
Thanks for the post and a quick question from a slow brain; does this ruling still apply if you are away for 91 days straight(section 23AG) but end up spending 140 days at home a year on days off/annual leave with no requirement to be available.
Thread Starter
Seaeagle,
Sorry mate, I'm not going to attempt to interpret it. I sent it straight off to my accountant and am waiting for his assessment of my own situation. The ATO sent me a copy of the amendment because I made a submission (which appears to have been ignored) when they initially asked for input. I must have then been put on the ATO mailing list.
Sorry mate, I'm not going to attempt to interpret it. I sent it straight off to my accountant and am waiting for his assessment of my own situation. The ATO sent me a copy of the amendment because I made a submission (which appears to have been ignored) when they initially asked for input. I must have then been put on the ATO mailing list.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read it
You have to seperate annual leave and any other leave.
Annual leave is not counted- you can spend that anywhere, including Aus.
The tax dept is saying that other days- days off, days in lieu etc.- are generated from the foreign service, and therefor if you spend them in Aus, they are not foreign service, and therefor costitute a break in the foreign service. The ATO has picked an arbritrary figure- 60 days- and said if you have any more than that in Aus (that is not annual recreation leave), pay us.
I may be wrong, but it seems plane to me. Very sad.
Annual leave is not counted- you can spend that anywhere, including Aus.
The tax dept is saying that other days- days off, days in lieu etc.- are generated from the foreign service, and therefor if you spend them in Aus, they are not foreign service, and therefor costitute a break in the foreign service. The ATO has picked an arbritrary figure- 60 days- and said if you have any more than that in Aus (that is not annual recreation leave), pay us.
I may be wrong, but it seems plane to me. Very sad.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire wall thanks for the complement about not being "bitter and twisted".
I don't think that your accountant (or mate's) is a liar, but I agree with Going Boeing in that the odd fellow complaining to his accountant is not lobbying the government. By the way, I doubt that there would be more than a hand full of QF pilots that could afford such exalted acountancy firms.
I do not speak for my colleagues (or compatriots), what I've said is from observation of fellow pilots at work and social environments. May I say, I have a lot more contact with them than you or your accountants.
In the past couple of years we have had more pressing problems than having to worry about the amount of tax CX and etc. pilots have to pay, it is not a prominent conversation piece. By the way there are a few ex QF pilots amongst the "etc". because of tax/pay. (a route I considered taking until Sept 11).
If you have to be angry with anyone, then be angry with the ATO.
It is getting to the stage that if you fart they will tax you.
I don't think that your accountant (or mate's) is a liar, but I agree with Going Boeing in that the odd fellow complaining to his accountant is not lobbying the government. By the way, I doubt that there would be more than a hand full of QF pilots that could afford such exalted acountancy firms.
I do not speak for my colleagues (or compatriots), what I've said is from observation of fellow pilots at work and social environments. May I say, I have a lot more contact with them than you or your accountants.
In the past couple of years we have had more pressing problems than having to worry about the amount of tax CX and etc. pilots have to pay, it is not a prominent conversation piece. By the way there are a few ex QF pilots amongst the "etc". because of tax/pay. (a route I considered taking until Sept 11).
If you have to be angry with anyone, then be angry with the ATO.
It is getting to the stage that if you fart they will tax you.
Last edited by Sopwith Pup; 27th Jul 2002 at 01:05.